Loading...
CC 2015-11-10_12c Status Reports_Recycled Water ProjectsMEMORANDUM TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: ~ TERESA MCCLISH,'COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTO-R SUBJECT: STATUS OF THE SOUTH SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY SANITARY DISTRICT RECYCLED WATER PROJECT AND THE -PISMO BEACH RECYCLED WATER FACILITIES PLANNlf'IG STUDY DATE: NOVEMBER 10, 2015 RECOMMENDATION: It is recom,mended that the City Council receive and file status reports regarding the South San Luis Obispo County· Sanitary District (SSLOCSD) recycled water project and the Pismo Beach Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study and direct staff to work collaboratively with south county jurisdictions on the development of a regionai recycled water project. IMPACT ON FINANCIAL AND PERSONN-EL RESOURCES: Expenditures associated with the City's participation to match grant funds for the Water Recycling Facilities Planning Grant from the State Water Resources Control Board w_ith the South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District (SSLOCSD) include $40,877 and are budgeted in the Water Fund. There are no other financial impacts with potential recycled water projects at this time. Staff resources will continue to be required for participation in ongoing regional efforts. Addressing water supply is one of the City's priorities identified in the Critical Needs Action Plan. · BACKGROUND: After studying numerous supplemental water supply options the City has identified recycled water as a priority. The City's long-term water supply was identified as a significant issue during development of the City's 2001 General Plan Update. At the August 24, 2004 meeting, the City Council r~viewed a Water Alternatives Study identifyi_ng 17 alternatives for Council con"sideration. Since that time, a number of stu'dies have been completed on the following alternatives-: ~ N~cimiento Water project ~ Price Canyon oil field ~ Recycled water ~ Desalination ~ Raising of the spillway at the Lopez Lake dam ~ Acquisition of State water ~ Lopez Spillway Raise study In June 2010, staff presented a water analysis and strategies to the City Council, and it was agreed to_ address future needs by expar:iding water conservation efforts, seeking Item 12.c. - Page 1 CITY COUNCIL STATUS OF REGIONAL RECYCLED WATER PROJECTS NOVEMBER 10, 2015 PAGE2 the purchase of State water, and continuing work on the potential for a water recycling project in the future. The City Council directed staff to prepare a ballot measure for the June 2012 election to enable the purchase of State water. However, due to a number of concerns, this was later delayed to obtain additional data and further study other alternatives. . . Meanwhile, in 2009 a comprehensive Water Recycling. Study was completed, which was an update to an original study prepared in 2001. Additional studies were prepared in 2010 to assess the potential for a distribution system from either the South County Sanitation District or Pismo Beach wastewater treatment plants to potential users. The limited number of user sites has been a barrier to making installation of a distribution system for turf irrigation cost effective· and worthwhile. As a result, the recent focus has been on determining the feasibility of using recycled yvater to improve groundwater supply reliability through recharge by injection or surface spreading, crop irrigation pumping offsets, and/or streamflow augmentation. Among other recommendations, the 2010 report proposed to: Conduct additional feasibility studies to address hydrogeologic issues relative to aquifer recharge. This study is needed to define the locations suitable for injection or spreading basins, and to consider well locations for possible seawater barrier protection. In 2014, the Council directed staff to pursue the following goals: >-Meet the City's future projected water demand of its buildout population by: · • Meeting the reduction in per capita use as prescribed in the Water Conservation Act of 2009; • Proceeding with work necessary to develop a .recycled water project that can be used to prevent seawater intrusion in order to provide long- range protection of the City's groundwater supply; and >-Ensure water use efficiency and drought protection through regional conjunctive use, storage .and management of surface and groundwater supplies. · Additionally, in 2014, the Co.uncil supported the NCMA Technical Group's Strategic Plan that provides a· framework for identifying common water resource planning goals and objectives and to establish a 10-year work plan for implementation of those efforts, including pursuing recycled water options. In November 2014, the Regional Recycled Water Strategic Plan. (RRWSP) was completed that was one component of an update to the SLO Integrated Regional Water Management Plan (IRWMP), and was funded by a Round 2 IRWM Regional Planning Grant from the California Department of Water Resources (DWR) (See Attachment 1 for the Executive Study). According to the study, the SSLOCSD has the largest volume of effluent considered in the RRWSP and the largest opportunities for large-scale reuse; Item 12.c. - Page 2 CITY COUNCIL STATUS OF REGIONAL RECYCLED WATER PROJECTS NOVEMBER 10, 2015 PAGE 3 . however, landscape irrigation projects are expensive ($3,090+/af) and the more cost effective reuse opportunities -agricultural irrigation, industrial reuse, groundwater recharge, seawater intrusion barrier, and surface water augmentation -require institutional, legal, outreach, and financial planning to be feasible. In May of 2015, an Integrated Regional Water Management (IRWM) Plan planning grant funded a groundwater basin characterization study of the Santa Maria Groundwater Basin. The objectives of the overall study were _to compile previous studies and data, develop a lithologic database and prepare geologic cross-sections, perform and analyze pumping tests, and evaluate several key hydrogeologic issues for the study area. It is primarily intended to be a basis for future studies related to a Salt and Nutrient Management Plan and the development of a numerical groundwater model. Also in 2015, two specific recycled water projects have emerged as potential regional projects. The City of Pismo Beach completed a Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study and the South San Luis Obispo County Sanitary District (SSLOCSD) is performing a Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study for a Satellite Water Resource Recovery Facility (WRRF), potentially located along one of the upstream· trunk lines that conveys Arroyo Grande's wastewater to the regional Wastewater Treatment Plant. On June 23, 2015, the Council directed staff to continue collaboration ·and participation in each of the regional recycled water proje~ts. ANALYSIS OF ISSUES: SSLOCSD Recy~led Water Facilities Planning Study -The South San Luis Obispo County Sanitary District (SSLOCSD) is currently completing a Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study for Satellite Water Resource Recovery Facility (SWRRF). For this study, the SSLOCSD has received a grant from the State Water Resources Control Board to fund approximately 50% of the project cost ($75,000). The remaining cost~ are being split evenly between the SSLOCSD and the City of Arroyo Grande. The study is evaluating options for a SWRRF, potentially located along one of the upstream trunk lines that serves the City of Arroyo Grande. This proposed facility, commonly referred to as a decentralized wastewater scalping plant, could provide recycled water for irrigation and groundwater recharge and would be located .outside of the coastal zone. Included as the first task of the RWFPS is ar:i Investment Analysis intended to determine the economic feasibility of the proposed SWRRF. This Investment Analysis Technical Memorandum (TM) identifies possible SWWRF treatment and beneficial reuse alternatives (Attachment 1 ). Cost estimates for the SWWRF alternatives and potential costs savings for the District's Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) Redundancy Project were developed and then compared against other potential supplemental water supply alternatives. The Investment Analysis determined that the unit cost of the water from each SWRRF alternative could vary significantly depending upon the volume and typ~ of beneficial Item 12.c. - Page 3 CITY COUNCIL STATUS OF REGIONAL RECYCLED WATER PROJECTS NOVEMBER 10, 2015 PAGE4 reuse with the lowest alternative that includes 1,677 AFY of Agricultural Irrigation having the lowest unit cost. The Investment Analysis additionally identified that a SWRRF could potentially reduce the capacity of the Redundancy Project by reducing the average annual flow to the WWTP. This reduction in capacity could result in a cost savings ranging from $1.2 to $5 million. When applying this potential cost savings to each of the SWRRF alternatives, it reduced the unit costs by approximately $100-200 per AF. Based on the results of the Investment Analysis and the competiveness of the SWRRF alternatives with other potential supplemental supplies, it is recommended that the SWRRF concept be carried forward for further analysis and completion of the RWFPS. It is additionally recommended that the RWFPS include a supplementary alternative that evaluates the construction of an_ offsite tertiary or advanced water treatment facility that could treat effluent from the WWTP for use as agriculture irrigation or groundwater recharge. This facility could be located outside of the Coastal Zone, Tsunami Inundation Zone and the Arroyo Grande Creek 100-YR Flood Plain, but could take advantage of the existing primary and secondary treatment facilities at the WWTP. Additionally, this facility could be potentially expanded to receive effluent from the Pismo Beach WWTP and realize potential unit costs savings associated with larger capacity facilities. Pismo Beach Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study -In April of 2015, the City of Pismo Beach recently completed a Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study to evaluate potential recycled water beneficial uses. The study evaluated several recycled water system alternatives (e.g. landscape irrigation; inland recharge; seawater intrusion barrier) that would allow the City of Pismo Beach and potential regional partners to offset water demands and/a~ provide a new, drought proof source of water supply for the region. Each of the alternatives was analyzed using a scoring and ranking process that included economic and non-economic criteria. Based on the results of the scoring and ranking process, both the inland recharge and seawater intrusion barrier groundwater recharge alternatives were selected as the preferred alternative for moving forward. The study recommended implementation of a Regional Groundwater Sustainability (RGS) Program consisting of the following conceptual improvements: 1. Upgrades to the existing WWTP to produce Advanced Purified Water for groundwater recharge a. Micro Filtration (MF) b. Reverse Osmosis (RO) c. Ultraviolet/Advanced Oxidation Process (UV/AOP) d. Possible equalization. storage using abandoned onsite facilities or constructing new storage e. a, b, and c above are anticipated to occupy 5,000 SF on the WWTP site. 2. Waste Effluent Pump Station modifications (if needed) to convey secondary treated peak flows and brine from the MF/RO to the ocean through the existing Item 12.c. - Page 4 CITY COUNCIL STATUS OF REGIONAL RECYCLED WATER PROJECTS NOVEMBER 10, 2015 PAGES outfall line & diffuser 3. Recycled Water Distribution Facilities a. 0.83 million gallon (MG) recycled water storage tank on the WWTP site b. 20 hp recycled water booster pump station on the WWTP site c. Approximately 4.5 miles of recycled water distribution piping from the WWTP to the injection wells. A portion of the alignment may be able to be completed by relining an abandoned steel pipeline in lieu of new pipeline construction. 4. Approximately four (4) recycled water injection wells overlying the Santa Maria Groundwater Basin (SMGB) a. One injection well will be installed as a full scale pilot well using potable water during the preliminary design phase to gather additional data to support final design. 5. Up to eight (8) new groundwater monitoring wells. Use of existing monitoring wells, if acceptable to the permitting agencies, could reduce the number of new monitoring wells. 6. New potable water production well(s) To initiate the next steps in the implementation of the RGS the City of Pismo Beach has split the project into four phases, which are outlined in the graphic below. To complete Phase 1, the City awarded SWCA Environmental Consultants with the contract to prepare the necessary environmental documents on October 20th and is currently reviewing engineering proposals to provide program management and develop the 10% design for the RGS. To aid in developing regional partnerships, the City of Pismo Beach has reached out to neighboring agencies to begin developing a governance framework for the project that 'will provide equitable water supply benefit for all of the participants. ALTERNATIVES: Rhase::2, :Fin~l,R~~jgn, The following alternatives are provided for the Council's consideration: 1. Receive and file status reports regarding the South San Luis Obispo County Sanitary District (SSLOCSD) recycled water project and the Pismo Beach Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study and direct staff to work Item 12.c. - Page 5 CITY COUNCIL STATUS OF REGIONAL RECYCLED WATER PROJECTS NOVEMBER 10, 2015 PAGE6 collaboratively with south county jurisdictions on the development of a regional recycled water project; 2. Provide staff other direction. ADVANTAGES: The recycled water projects are potentially viable options to protecting and augmenting existing water supplies. , DISADVANTAGES: No disadvantages have been identified. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: No environmental review is required for· this item. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS: The Agenda was posted in front of City Hall on Thursday, November 5, 2015. The Agenda and staff report were posted on the City's website on Friday, November 6, 2015. No public comments were received. Attachments: 1. Investment Analysis Technical Memorandum Item 12.c. - Page 6 ATTACHMENT 1 Technical Memorandum Date: 11/2/2015 , To: John Clemons South San Lyis Obispo County Sanitation District 1600 Aloha-Pl · Oceana, CA 93475 Prepared by: Kaylie Ashton, E.l.T, Jeanine Genchanok, E.l.T. Reviewed by: Dan Heimel, P.E., Jeffery Szytel, P.E. Phone: Project: Satellite Water Resource Recovery Facilities Planning Study SUBJECT: INVESTMENT ANALYSIS -~wsc WATER SYSTEMS CONSULTING, INC. (805) 489-6666. The South San Luis Obispo County Sanitation District (District) is interested in evaluating the feasibility of constructing a satellite water resource recovery facility (SWRRF) to produce high quality recycled water by treating flows from a portion of their service area. The District cont,racted with Water Systems Consulting, Inc. (WSC) to prepare an applieation for a facilities planning grant under the state of California's Water Recycling Funding Progr:am and to complete a Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study (RWFPS) for the project. Included as the first task of the RWFPS, is an Investment Analysis, intended to determine the economic feasibility of the . . proposed SWRRF. This Investment Analysis Technical Memorandum (TM) identifies possible SWWRF treatment and beneficial reuse alternatives. Cost estimates for the S.WWRF alternatives and potential costs savings for the District's Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) Redundancy Project were developed and then compared against other. potential supplemental water supply alternatives. The TM is organized into the following main sections: 1. Executive Summary 2. Background 3. Investment Analysis Assumptions 4. Potential Recycled Water Alternatives 5. Investment Analysis 6. Implementation Considerations 7. Conclusions and Recommendations 11/2/2015 Page 1of18 Item 12.c. - Page 7 Satellite Water Resource Recovery Facilities Plonnmg Study Investment Analysis 1 Executive Summary :~wsc WATER SYSTEMS CONSULTING, I Ne: To assist the District in evaluating the feasibility of constructing a SWRRF, WSC is preparing a RWFPS, which includes as the first task an Investment Analysis. The Investment Analysis is intended to be a higher level preliminary evaluation of the economic feasibility of the proposed SWRRF and includes the development of comparative cost estimates for five (S) potential Recycled Water (RW) conceptual alternatives. The conceptual , ' alternatives include diverting flow at three different locations along the District's trunk lines and use of recycled water for agriculture (Ag) irrigation and groundwater recharge. The 'alternatives analyzed are outlined in Table ES 1. The Investment Analysis also included an evaluation of potential savings that could be achieved in the District's proposed Redundancy Project through the construction of a SWRRF. Table ES 1. SWRRF Conceptual Alternatives Summary Comparative Capital and Operations & Maintenance (O&M) cost estimates for each of the alternatives were developed to create estimates of Unit Cost (i.e. $/AF) for each of the alternatives. For the cost estimates, a 30- year life was assumed with an annual inflation rate of 3% and an interest rate on 100% debt of 5%. However, if the projects were to be funded through Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) program the interest rate and associated unit costs could be much lower. The estimated costs for each of the alternatives are shown in Table ES 2. 11/2/2015 Page,2of18 Item 12.c. - Page 8 Satellite Water Resource Recovery Facilities Planning Study Investment Analysis Table ES 2 Unit Cost Estimates w/o Redundancy Pro1ect Cost Savings awsc WATER SYSTEMS CONSULTING, !NC. ,$2,800 -. ----',' .·:·1 .. $2,100 ~~;·' . ~-~·-...1 -$6,80(f ,:,, : '·$-Z ,4QQ~:· :J $5,8Cfo' --·~~-~~,~~~~ To estimate the potential savings that could be achieved in the Redundancy Project, it was assumed that a SWRRF could divert a portion of the collection system flow and proportionally reduce the total flow at the District's current WWTP and therefore the size of the Redundancy Project. These savings were then applied to the unit cost estimates for each of the RW alternatives and the results are shown in Table ES 3. The RW unit cost estimates were then compared to cost estimates for other potential supplemental supplies available in region, which ranged from $1,300 to $3,000/AF. Table ES 3. Unit Cost Estimates w/ Redundancy Pro1ect Savings The Investment Analysis determined that the unit cost of the water from each SWRRF alternative could vary significantly depending upon the volume and type of beneficial reuse. Of the different SWRRF options, Alternative 2, which included 1,677 AFY of Ag Irrigation, appeared to have the lowest unit cost. The Investment Analysis additionally identified that a SWRRF could potentially reduce the capacity of the Redundancy Project by reducing the average annual flow to the WWTP. This reduction in capacity could result in a cost savings ranging from $1.2 to $5 M. When applying this potential cost savings to each of the SWRRF alternatives, it reduced the unit costs by approximately $100-200 per AF. Based on the results of the Investment Analysis and the competiveness of the SWRRF alternatives with other potential supplemental supplies, it is recommended that the SWRRF concept be carried forward for further analysis and completion of the RWFPS. It is additionally recommended that the RWFPS include a supplementary alternative that evaluates the construction of an offsite tertiary or advanced water treatment facility that could treat effluent from the WWTP for use as agriculture irrigation or groundwater recharge. This facility could be 11/2/2015 Page 3of18 Item 12.c. - Page 9 Satellite Water Resource Recovery Facilities Planning Study Investment Analysis ~~wsc ~- WATERSYST!:Ms CONSULTING, ]NC. located outside of the Coastal Zone, Tsunami Inundation Zone and the Arroyo Grande Creek 100-YR Flood Plain, but could take advantage of the existing primary and secondary treatment facilities at the WWTP. Additionally, this facility could be potentially expanded to receive effluent from the Pismo Beach WWTP and realize potential unit costs savings associated with larger capacity facilities. 2 Background The District's WWTP currently lacks sufficient redundancy for its secondary treatment system to allow the existing trickling filter to be taken out. of.service for extended maintenance or in the.event of a process upset. To provide the necessary redundancy, the District is currently planning the construction of a parallel secondary treatment train or Redundancy Project, which would inc~ude an activated sludge aeration tank, a secondary clarifier and sludge thickening/dewatering equipment. To help offset the costs of developing a recycled water system, it was envisioned that the construction of a SWRRF could provide increased upstream treatment capacity and reduce average flow rates at the existing WWTP. Consequently, the required capacity and cost of the Redundancy Project c-ould be reduced. The recycled water from the SWRRF could provide the local water supply agencies and/or farms with access to a supplemental water supply that could be used to offset groundwater pumping or recharge the groundwater basin and improve water supply reliability for Southern San Luis Obispo .County. Figure 1 illustrates .the proposed SWRRF trunk Line connection locations evaluated as part of the Investment Analysis. The potential locations are sited along the Arroyo Grande trunk line in the southern portion of the District's service area near the Cities of Arroyo Grande and Grover Beach. These sites were evaluated due to their proximity to the agriculture fields and the City of Arroyo Grande. WSC performed. an lnvestm·ent Analysis to develop the planning level cost estimates for a potential SWRRF. Several different site locations and beneficial use alternatives were evaluated to provide a range of potential costs. The cost analysis considered capital and O&M costs for each alternative and accounted for additional cost savings for reducing the current Redundancy Project at the WWTP. 11/2/2015 Page 4of18 Item 12.c. - Page 10 Satellite Water Resource Recovery Facilities Planning Study Investment Analysis Legend r1J PotentialTrunk Line Connection f.VwTPj SSLOCSD Existing WWTP ~ Sewer Trunk Line SSLOCSD Agency Boundaries SSLOCSD Service Area and Sewer Trunk Lines ~wsc WATER SYSTEMS (ONSU!:TING, INC. ----======iFeet 0 . 2,150 4,300 ·-·~vvsc WATER SYSTEMS.CONSULTING, INC Figure 1. SSLOCSD Service Area and Proposed Trunk Line Connections 11/2/2015 Page 5of18 Item 12.c. - Page 11 Satellite Water Resource Recovery Facilities Planning Study Investment Analysis 3 Investment Analysis Assumptions '. ~wsc -~ WATER SYSTEMS CONSULTING, INC. The following section describes the sources of data and assumptions used in the Investment Analysis TM. 3.1 Wastewater Supply WSC obtained estimates of the potential wastewater quantities that could be diverted at different locations along the Arroyo Grande trunk Line from the 2011 Arroyo Grande Collection System hydraulic model. It was determined from the City of Arroyo Grande Wastewater Master Plan (WSC 2012) that significant growth is not anticipated in the upstream portion ofthe collection system nor significant increase in future flow rates; therefore the current average annual demands were used for this analysis. It was assumed that the SWWRF would have capacity to treat current Average Annual Flow (AAF) at the Trunk Line connection point, which for the connection points evaluated in the Investment Analysis ranged from 0.48 Million Gallons/Day (MGD) to 1.5 MGD. The SWRRF was assumed to have sufficient redundancy capacity to allow for full time operations. 3.2 Redundancy Project The Redundancy Project was assumed to have a capacity of 4.2 MGD (Kennedy/Jenks Consultants 2008) and a total project cost of $19 million (MKN & Associates 2015) For the Investment Analysis, it was assumed that a SWRRF would allow for a reduction in the sizing of the Redundancy Project. 3.3 Beneficial Use of Recycled Water For this Investment Analysis, the types of reuse considered include: • Agricultural Irrigation -Disinfected tertiary Recycled Water (RW). • Indirect Potable Reuse (IPR) -Full Advanced Treatment (FAT) with groundwater recharge and extraction through surface spreading and/or direct injection. RW must meet the State Water Resource Control Board Division of Drinking Water's California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 22. Title 22 defines four types of RW based on the treatment process used and water quality produced. The four types are disinfected secondary RW, disinfected secondary -23 RW, disinfected secondary-2.2 RW and disinfected tertiary RW. Groundwater Recharge Regulations were adopted into Title 22 on June 18th, 2014 due to the current drought conditions. These regulations discuss the following types of recharge: • Surface spreading without FAT • Subsurface application by direct injection (FAT required for the entire flow) • Surface spreading with FAT The types of beneficial use and wastewater treatment requirements for each type of reuse are described further in Sections 3.3.1 and 3.3.2. 11/2/2015 Page 6of18 Item 12.c. - Page 12 Satel/Jte Water Resource Recovery Facilities Planning Study Investment Analysis 3.3.1 Agriculture Irrigation 3.3.1.1 Potential RW Demand '~WSC -'~ WATER SYSTU\lS CONSULTING, INC To estimate potential RW demand for agriculture irrigation, WSC assumed that the crops being irrigated would be truck crops (vegetables and fruits) and used a demand factor of 1.4 AFY/acre, based on the Gross Irrigation Requirement Water Planning Area 5 (Fugro 2014). This demand factor was used to calculate the amount of · acreage that could be irrigated depending on the range of RW supply available at the point of connection. 3.3.1.2 Wastewater Treatment Requirements For unrestricted agricultural irrigation, RW must be treated to disinfected tertiary standards. Disinfected tertiary is defined by Title 22 as filtered and subsequently disinfected wastewater that meets the following criteria: (a) The filtered wastewater has been disinfected by either: (1) A chlorine disinfedion process following filtration that provides a CT (the product of total chlorine residual and modal contact time measured at the same point) value of not less than 450 milligram-minutes per liter at all times with a modal contact time of at least 90 minu_~es, based on peak dry weather design flow; or (2) A disinfection process that, when combined with the filtration process, has been demonstrated to inactivate and/or remove 99.999 percent of the plaque forming units of F- specific bacteriophage MS2, or polio virus in the wastewater. A virus that is at least as resistant to disinfection as polio virus may be used for purposes of the demonstration. (b) The median concentration of total coliform bacteria measured in the disinfected effluent does not exceed an MPN of 2.2 per 100 milliliters utilizing the bacteriological results of the last seven days for whic_h analyses have been. completed and the number of total coliform bacteria does not exceed an MPN of 23 per 100 milliliters in more than one sample in any 30 day period. No sample shall exceed an MPN of 240 total coliform bacteria per 100 milliliters. For this study it was assumed that RW was treated to disinfected tertiary standards for the agriculture irrigation alternatives, and that reverse osmosis was not required for TDS reduction. 3.3;2 Groundwater Recharge Two sub alternatives were considered for the case of indirect potable reuse through groundwater recharge: surface spreading basins and injection wells. 3.3.2.1 Surface Spreading Basin Locations The San Luis Obispo Co_unty Regional Recycled Water Strategic Plan (RRWSP) has identified the agriculture fields to th~ north of Arroyo Grande High School as a site for potential surface spreading (Cannon 2014). A percolation rate of 1 foot.per day was assumed for the Investment Analysis, consistent with the RRWSP. 3.3.2.2 Injection Well Locations The City of Pismo Beach Recycled Water Facilities Planning Study (Pismo RWFPS) identified that inland injection wells required a 200-foot setback from any water supply wells to meet the minimum 8 month retention time within the groundwater basin before extraction per CCR Title 22 regulations (WSC 2015). -For this alternative, consistent with the Pismo RWFPS, each well was assumed to be capable of injecting 200-300 AFY based on the transmissivity of the aquifers (WSC 2015). 11/2/2015 Page 7of18 Item 12.c. - Page 13 Satellite Water Resource Recovery Facilities Planning Study Investment Analysis 3.3.2.3 Wastewater Treatment Requirements -~wsc -~ WATER SYSTEMS CONSULTING, INC. Table 1 summarizes the required level of treatment for groundwater recharge through surface recharge and subsurface injection assumed for this analysis. According to CCR Title 22, FAT is required for groundwater augmentation using direct injection, unless an alternative treatment has been demonstrated to the Division of Drinking Water (DDW) as providing equal or better protection of public health and has received written approval from DDW. CCR Title 22, Section 60320.201 defines FAT as "the treatment of an oxidized wastewater ... using a reverse osmosis (RO) and an oxidation treatment process {AOP)". Groundwater augmentation using surface spreading requires disinfected tertiary as a minimum level of treatment. For this Investment Analysis, FAT was assumed for both surface spreading and subsurface injection. Table 1. Summary of Assumptions for Surface and Subsurface Groundwater Recharge Alternatives Notes: 1. Must be verified by a tracer study. An 8 month minimum is required for planning level estimates based on numerical modeling. 2. Minimum of 3 ba'rriers and each barrier must achieve a minimum of 1-log reduction. No barrier can achieve more than 6-log. 3. FAT requires Reverse Osmosis (RO) and advanced oxidation treatment (ADP). 3.3.3 Solids Conveyance This analysis assumes that residuals from the SWRRF, including biosolids and RO concentrate, would be discharged to the existing trunk lines and conveyed by gravity to the existing WWTP for treatment. 3.4 Financing For the planning level cost estimate, a 30-year life was assumed with an annual inflation rate of 3% and an interest rate on 100% debt of 5%. Should the project be funded through a State Revolving Fund (SRF) loan, the interest rate will be half of the General Obligation bond rate at the time of funding approval. Interest rates would therefore be substantially lower than 5% (most recently 1.6%). Grant funding was not considered for the purpose of this analysis. All costs were annualized and brought back to present value for relative comparison. 11/2/2015 Page 8of18 Item 12.c. - Page 14 Satellite Water Resaurce Recovery Faci/1t1es Planning Study Investment Analysis 4 Potential RW Alternatives 4.1 Alternative Description "·~wsc· ":,,~' WATER SYSTEMS CONSULTING, INC. To obtain a range of costs for a potential SWRRF, WSC identified and evaluated five (5) conceptual alternatives. Each conceptual alternative was identified by a specific location. of the SWRRF and type of beneficial use of the RW. Table 2 summarizes the conceptual alternatives. Figure 2 illustrates the locations for conceptual Alternatives 1 and 2 and the corresponding irrigation areas. Figure 3 illustrates the potential locations for conceptual Alt~rnatives 3, 4, and 5, including potential groundwater injection points for Alternatives 4 and 5. The potential locations of the SWRRF were limited to outside of the Coastal Zone to limit permitting requirements. Appendix A provides additional information on design criteria for distribution and treatment. Table 2. SWRRF Conceptual Alternatives Summary . _.'.: . :.·; . :; ... : \! ,; '.:·1;. ·. : . . . . .' \,1C· · .. GV\{R;:~·~: :Ji«;·. > . HWY l~~nd'. · .i: · 1 5 '·: ·:;!"•-'· :·· F·'A. T~> ::."~. ·; througlj , . '.i'/' " ·. ~· "'~!'~ -~d !,"'M ~, ;J'"" ; -<'> j"~ ,: ,;_;: ' •• ·,:.;_""j' < .· .· 22 :S:T ::.· . !l. ' > ' '.• J ji . • "<;.,,~~I )nJ~CtJO.n /, 1t ' . '• ,· ~ ~ ..... :} :· ··~:~t . ..:_~~~·~~~3~::::.:~.:J:~~~J_::__:wef!~:l:i;JL:.-~.~ Notes: 1. Alternative 4 used three iniection wells, each with a capacity of approximately 190 AFY. 2. Alternative 5 used six injection wells, each with a capacity of approximately 230 AFY. 11/2/2015 Page 9of18 Item 12.c. - Page 15 Satellite Water Resource Recovery Facilities Planning Study Investment Analysis Le~end 0 Potential Trunl(Line Conneetion ~] A!termitii/e ·1-1m~ation Ai~a ~ ~ternatiVe i lrrigatiop Area· ~TPi :ssi:.ocs~ Existing wmP -.Sewer Trunk Line ~ Coastal Conservancy Boundary SSLOCSD Potential SWRRF l mgation Alternatives ... -~wsc WATEltSYSTU\15 CONSULTING, lNC. N Ji ----======Feet A o 1,:i.sa 2,100 :~n.1~c-: ~~-W-rt:JJ WATElt SYSTEMS CoNsUll'IWG, INr;, B.L_~~~~--===-~~~~~_L~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~--'~~~~~~~~~~~---' Figure 2. Potential SWRRF lrrigatwn Alternatives 11/2/2015 Page 10of18 Item 12.c. - Page 16 Satellite Water Resource Recovery Facilities Planning Study Investment Analysis Legend: -[J: -Pote"ntial:Tn,m_k Line Connection Potential ~temat~e_-~ ll')Jection Points Potential Addi~onaJ Alternative _5-Injection Points --~wsc WATER SYSTEMS CONSULTING, INC- N A ----====Feet SSLOCSD -o 1,3so 2,100 E Potential-SWRRF ~Al!C!.-C ~ -~roundwater-RechargeAltematiyes :::~-W i::» - :0. ·WATERS\'Sn:MsColllsUL~HG1 INC, -a,__~~~~~~~~~~~.._~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-'-~~~~~~~~~~~~ Figure 3. Pote_ntial SWRRF Groundwater Recharge Locations 11/2/2015 Page 11of18 Item 12.c. - Page 17 Satellite Water Resource Recovery Facilities Planning Study Investment Analysis 5 Investment Analysis ~wsc WATER SYSTEMS CONSULTING, lNC. For the Investment Analysis, estimates of the unit cost (i.e. $/AF) for each of the SWRRF alternatives were developed. These estimates are shown Table 3. The cost estimates include cost for the treatment facility, pipelines, pump stations, customer conversions and annual O&M costs. These planning level costs were based on cost estimate assumptions from the RRWSP (Cannon 2014) and other sources. Additional details on each of the cost estimates for each alternative are provided in Appendix C. The cost estimates are for comparison purpose and should be considered order of magnitude or planning level costs only. Table 3. Unit Cost Estimates w/o Redundancy Project Cost Savings To account for potential Redundancy Project cost savings, which may be achieved through construction of a SWRRF, additional unit cost estimates were developed for each of the SWRRF alternatives. It was assumed that a SWRRF cou Id divert a portion of the collection system flow and proportionally reduce the total flow at the District's current WWTP and therefore the size and cost of the Redundancy Project. This is a simplification assumed for the purposes of the Investment Analysis, however, additional evaluation of the possible reductions in the sizing of the Redundancy Project will need to be performed in latter phases of the study. It was assumed that the reduced capital costs for the Redundancy Project could then be applied to the unit costs (i.e. $/AF) for the recycled water produced at the SWRRF. Estimates of the potential reduction in Redundancy Project capital costs were calculated using the activated sludge with complex solids handling cost curve from the Construction Costs for Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants: 1973-1982 (EPA 1983). The cost curve data were adjusted to 2015 dollars and to match the latest capital cost estimates for the Redundancy Project and used to establish a relationship between the capacity of the Redundancy Project and total project cost. For this level of analysis, it was assumed that O&M cost estimates for the Redundancy Project would not change. Estimates of the potential reductions in capital costs for the Redundancy Project are shown Table 4. 11/2/2015 Page 12of18 Item 12.c. - Page 18 Satellite Water Resource Recovery Facilities Planning Study Investment Analysis Table 4. Potential Redundancy Pro1ect Cost Savings1 --~wsc -~ WATER SYST[~\S CONSULTING, !NC Accounting for the potential cost savings that could be achieved in the Redundancy Project through development of a SWRRF, updated unit cost estimates forthe each of the SWRRF alternatives were developed and shown in Table 5. Table 5. Unit Cost Estimates w/ Redundancy Pro1ect Savmgs1 5.1 Supplemental Supply Alternatives To provide a comparison of the estimated unit costs for recycled water produced by the SWRRF, cost estimates for several other potential supplemental supply sources were compiled and shown in Table 6. All unit costs were escalated to July 2015 dollars using the ENR Construction Cost Index. 1 These estimated cost savings are planning level only, and represent order of magnitude· estimates. Additional evaluation to further refine the estimated cost savings will be completed in the RWFPS. 11/2/2015 Page 13of18 Item 12.c. - Page 19 Satellite Water Resource Recovery Fac1l1ties Planning Study Investment Analysis Table 6. Supplemental Water Supply Costs ~wsc WATER SYSHAlS CONSULTING, lNC. Note: Unit cost from each reference are escalated to July 2015 based on ENR Construction Cost Index. Financing assumptions applied by each study are not reconciled. 6 Conclusions and Recommendations The Investment Analysis determined that the unit cost of the water from each SWRRF alternative could vary significantly depending upon the volume and type of beneficial reuse. The agriculture irrigation alternatives showed a significantly lower unit cost than the groundwater recharge alternatives, primarily related to the increased treatment costs and reduced efficiencies associated with FAT. Of the different SWRRF options, Alternative 2, which included 1,677 AFY of agricultural irrigation, appeared to have the lowest unit cost. The Investment Analysis additionally identified that a SWRRF could potentially reduce the capacity of the Redundancy Project by reducing the average annual flow to the WWTP. This reduction in capacity could result in a cost savings ranging from $1.2 to $5 M. When applying this potential cost savings to each of the SWRRF alternatives, it reduced the unit costs by approximately $100-200 per AF. Based on the results of the Investment Analysis, it is recommended that the SWRRF concept be carried forward for further analysis. The estimated unit costs for the agriculture irrigation SWRRF alternatives appear to be cost competitive with the other identified supplemental supply alternatives. Additional analysis through development of the RWFPS will help further refine these cost estimates. One conceptual alternative that was not considered in this Investment Analysis is the construction of an offsite tertiary or advanced water treatment facility that could treat effluent from the WWTP for use as agriculture irrigation or groundwater recharge. This facility could be located outside of the Coastal Zone, Tsunami Inundation Zone and the Arroyo Grande Creek 100-YR Flood Plain, but could take advantage ofthe existing primary and secondary treatment facilities at the WWTP. Additionally, this facility could be potentially expanded to receive effluent from the Pismo Beach WWTP and realize potential unit costs savings associated with larger capacity facilities. Considering the potential benefits and cost efficiencies of this conceptual alternative, it is recommended that it be carried forward in the RWFPS as well. 11/2/2015 Page 14of18 Item 12.c. - Page 20 Satelltte Water Resource Recovery Faci/1t1es Planning Study Investment Analysis "'~WSC ~ ·==- WATER SYSTEMS CONSULTING, INC. Appendix A. DESIGN CRITERIA FOR DISTRIBUTION AND TREATMENT The RW systems consist of three primary sets of facilities: );;> SWRRF plant facilities (treatment, storage I equalization and product water pump station) );;> Distribution system facilities (pipelines, storage and booster pump station) );;> Customer facilities or recharge facilities (pipeline, recharge basins, and injection wells) r· Terti·;rY--Satellite-Pf~-;:;t·---: 1 1 : Plant will--include he;dwo;ks, M;;;b~;~e Bior~a~tor and disinfe-ctio;:;~­ Title 22 Standards '. Full Advance Treatment j -Plant will include h~a~works; Mel'Jlbrane-Bioreactor, UV-disinfection and J i Satellite Plant -. l-disinfection to Title.22-~_tan~ards : __ . · --. -. _ j 1 , Distribution System Facilities ! PJp~tt~es . --: ··-:-·TSized-=t:~-maintain ·a he_ad·i~ss gradi"E;";:;t"o_f_le-ss-t-han-·la ft of hea~loss' per : _· J 1000 ft:cfr pipelin~ during.peak hour . -. - : Boost"E;"~ Pump Statl~ns Capacity based on peak hour demand (assumes no gravity system storage) Station efficiency is assumed to be 75% All pumps will have Variable Frequency Drives (VFDs) Irrigation system booster stations will be equipped with a hydropneumatic tank to control pressure variations .System 'Storage _ _ l_~~pa~~~~-_!Jase~on_ ~~:rage ~aily fl~~----~-----------------------------..1 : Injection Well Site Siz~ 50' x 50' permanent site; additional construction easements based on site l : I specific requirements I l : . -. · . ·. · _ -::t::ustomer·or Recharge Facilities -· · _ . -· - 1 1 L-...,__.. _____ ;,_ _________ ~-----~-·---·------_:;·-· ........... ··------~----------· ------~------'------ ; Main Irrigation I Sized to maintain a head loss gradient of less than 10 ft of head loss per i Customer Services ! 1000 ft of pipeline during peak hour ---~ ; Recharge._Basin · l Rech_arge rate lft/day_~-------------_ _J 1. Recharge rate was identified from the RRWSP. Customer Conversion Cost For this investment Analysis, the cost to convert existing agriculture irrigation to include RW services was estimated based on either 1) storage tank and pump or 2) flow control valve with backflow prevention depending on existing customer irrigation system. 1) RW would be pumped to the agriculture customer where it would be stored in an onsite storage tank along with potable or non-potable water necessary to mean either peak demands or water quality specific to the crop. From there a pump would be required to irrigation the crops. 2) RW would be pumped to the agriculture customer where it go through a flow control valve and be combined with potable or non-potable water necessary to mean either peak demands or water quality specific to the crop. The potable or non-potable line would be fitted with backflow prevention to assure no cross contamination. It is assumed that both options will cost approximately $50,000 for the conversion and testing to assure no cross contamination. 11/2/2015 Page 15of18 Item 12.c. - Page 21 Satellite Water Resource Recovery Facilities Planning Study Investment Analysis Appendix B. IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS "~WSC WAT£R 5YST(MS CONSULTING, INC. There are many factors that will go into implementing a RW System. The first step will be to prepare and complete a RWFPS. On behalf of the District, WSC has prepared and submitted the grant application for the RWFPS which has been accepted. In preparing the RWFPS, variety of SWRRF locations, sizes and treatment will be analyzed along with reuse alternatives. Through this process, a recommended alternative will be identified and refined. Implementing the preferred RW alternative will consist of the following components: };;> Preliminary and Final Design };;> Permitting };;> Environmental Documents };;> Coordination and Public Outreach };;> Implementation Schedule Preliminary and Final Design Depending on the preferred RW alternative, Preliminary and Final Design can include groundwater modeling, test injection well, water quality sampling and design of the SWRRF. Permitting The permitting process can include obtaining the Water Recycling Requirement and updating the District's Water Discharge Requirement permit through Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board; infrastructure permits; and obtain approval from the State Water Resource Control Board in accordance with California Water Code sections 1210-1212 addressing water rights before changing the purpose of use of treated water. A Salt and Management Plan will need to be developed by the Northern Cities Management Area agencies, which would identify the groundwater quality, implementation plan and monitoring program. If groundwater recharge is the preferred alternative, the implementation plan and monitoring program will need to be updated to the preferred alternative. E:nvironme:ntal Documents In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, it is anticipated the District will need to prepare an Initial Study followed by an Environmental Impact Report for the recommended project. To apply for federal funding sources, the District may also need to prepare an Environmental Assessment and an Environmental Impact Statement to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act. Coordination and Public Outreach. The development of SWRRF would benefit the water purveyors/users in and around the District's service area by providing a supplemental drought resilient water supply. Since the District does not currently supply potable water, the District would need to developed partnerships with interested water agencies and/or agricultural farmers. The District may also need to focus on public outreach to obtain public acceptance. The public outreach program can vary depending on the preferred alternative. Implementation Schedule An implementation schedule will need to be develop to identify and schedule funding opportunities, permitting requirements, design and construction. 11/2/2015 Page 16of18 Item 12.c. - Page 22 Satellite Water Resource Recovery Facilities Planning Study Investment Analysis Appendix C. DETAILS OF RW COST ESTIMATE ~wsc WATER SYSHMS CONSULTING, lNC. Planning level cost estimates for each potential alternative were developed. Assumptions used as the basis of these cost estimates are discussed in this section. Scope and Accuracy The cost estimates included in this Investment Analysis are based upon the Class 4 Conceptual Report Classification of Opinion of Probable Construction Cost as developed by the Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering Cost Estimate.Classification System. The purpose of a Class 4 Estimate is to provide a conceptual' level effort that has an expected accuracy range from -30% to +50% and the inclusion of an appropriate contingency for planning and feasibility studies. The conceptual nature of the design concepts and associated costs presented in this Investment Analysis are based upon limited design information available at this stage of the projects. These cost estimates have been developed using a combination of data from RS Means CostWorks®, recent bids, experience with similar projects, current and foreseeable regulatory requirements and an understanding ofthe necessary project components. As the projects progress, the design and associated costs could vary significantly from the project components identified in this Investment Analysis. For projects where applicable cost data is available in RS Means CostWorks® (e.g. pipeline installation), cost data released in Quarter 2 of 2015, adjusted for San Luis Obispo, California, is used. Material prices were adjusted in some cases to provide estimates that align closer with actual local bid results. For projects where RS Means CostWorks® data is not available, cost opinions are generally derived from bid prices from similar projects, vendor quotes, material prices, and labor estimates, with adjustments for inflation, size, complexity and location. Cost opinions are in 2015 dollars (ENR 20 City Average Construction Cost Index of: 10,037 for July 2015). When budgeting for future years, appropriate escalation factors should be applied. Cost opinions are "planning-level" and may not fully account for site-specific conditions that will affect the actual costs,, such as soils conditions and utility conflicts. Markups and Contingencies For the development of the planning level cost estimates, several markups and contingencies are applied to the estimated construction costs to obtain the total estimated project costs. The markups are intended to account for costs of engineering, design, administration, and legal efforts associated with implementing the project (collectively, Implementation Markup). For the Investment Analysis, two different Implementation Markups are used depending on the type of project. Irrigation projects have a 30% markup, while groundwater recharge projects have a 40% markup. This difference is to account for the greater number of studies required and the extended implementation schedule of a groundwater recharge project. 11/2/2015 Page 17of18 Item 12.c. - Page 23 Satellite Water Resource Recovery Facilities Planning Study Investment Analysis -~wsc "'~ WATER SYSTEMS CONSULTING, lNC. Unaccounted-for Items and Contingency account for additional construction costs that could not be anticipated at the time ofthis analysis. ·A summary of the markups and contingencies applied in this Investment Analysis are presented in the table below. EstimatecftonstruttiortCost ' ' -""" --_ .... ----· ':.' -- + I 20% of Construction Subtotal for Contingency = I Subtotal 1 · ~i:':;~.:·1 :,303 of.sy~fptal ·1for;1 rr:!gatton. (or: 4d%: Q.f s~~-fo~a!. i:fo·r:,GRR~,Y:~o~,1 ryf plerr1~n~~ti9i):;~Q~("j , "'"" • ..:.........:.._-..... " -,, ,"_ ,..!_:__;__ ________ ._-_ -~ -c '----· ___ _,__._": • ' -• __ _:_.:..::r -,• = Tot_al Capital Cost i Excluded Costs >-Overall Program Management. If the magnitude of the capital program exceeds the capacity of City staff to manage all of the work, then the services of a program management team may be required. >-Public Information Program. Depending on the relative public acceptability of a major RW facility or a group of facilities, there may be a need for a public information program, which could take many different forms. It is recommended that the City engage in a proactive public outreach program in coordination with other existing or planned outre.ach programs. Unit Cost for Potential Alternatives Unit costs of the various a'lternatives are compared using the annual payment method. The unit cost is calculated with this method by adding the annual payment for borrowed capital costs to the annual O&M cost and dividing by the annual project yield. This method provides a simple comparison between potential alternatives in this lnvestrl')ent Analysis. The factors described below are used to calculate the unit cost with the annual payment method. The economic factors used to analyze the estimated costs for each of the project concepts are: >-Inflation: Escalation of capital and O&M costs is assumed to be 3.0% based on a combination of California CCI and Western Region Consumer Price Index (CPI} for the past 10 years (June 2004 to June 2014}. The average annual escalation rate for California CCI is 3.6%, while the average annual inflation rate for CPI is 2.3%. >-Project Financing: Interest Rate & Payback Period: 5% over 30 years. Note that State Revolving Fund (SRF} loans are at a lower rate and potentially shorter payback period. >-Useful Life of Facilities: The useful life of facilities will vary based on several factors, including type of facility, operating'conditions, design life, and maintenance upkeep. Structural components of most facilities are typically designed to last 50 years or longer. However, mechanical and electrical components tend to have a much shorter lifespan and typically require replacement or rehabilitation at regular intervals .. To simplify the lifecycle evaluation, this Investment Analysis assumes that all facilities have a useful life matching the financing payback period of 30 years. 11/2/2015 Page 18of18 Item 12.c. - Page 24